In this case, plaintiff <name
of plaintiff> seeks to recover damages from defendant <name of
defendant> for vexatious suit based upon <name of defendant>'s
alleged commencement and prosecution against (him/her) of a prior civil
(action/proceeding)1
entitled <title of underlying civil action or proceeding>, which I
will refer to as "the underlying (action/proceeding)." To prevail in an
action for vexatious suit, a plaintiff must prove five essential elements by
a fair preponderance of the evidence:

that <name of defendant>
commenced and prosecuted the underlying (action/proceeding) against
(him/her), [either in <name of defendant>'s own name or in the name
of another person or entity];

that <name of defendant>
commenced and prosecuted the underlying (action/proceeding) against
(him/her) without probable cause;2

that <name of defendant>
commenced and prosecuted the underlying (action/proceeding) against
(him/her) with malice;

that the underlying
(action/proceeding) against <name of plaintiff> was finally
terminated in a manner favorable to <name of plaintiff>; and

that <name of defendant>'s
commencement and prosecution of the underlying (action/proceeding) against
(him/her), without probable cause and with malice, legally caused (him/her)
to suffer at least some of the injuries or losses complained of in (his/her)
complaint.

I will discuss these essential
elements with you in detail before discussing the issue of damages.

Prosecution of underlying
action or proceeding<Name of plaintiff> claims
that <name of defendant> commenced the underlying (action/proceeding)
against (him/her) [in the name of <named plaintiff in the underlying
action or proceeding>] on or about <date of commencement of
underlying action or proceeding>, and thereafter prosecuted it [against
(him/her)]3
until <date of final termination of underlying action or proceeding
against the plaintiff>.

Without probable causeA person has probable cause to
commence or prosecute a civil (action/proceeding) on a claim of <claim
made in underlying action or proceeding as to which defendant allegedly
lacked probable cause> when (he/she) has knowledge of facts, actual or
apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable person in the belief that
(he/she) has lawful grounds for prosecuting the defendant in the manner
complained of.4
A person has lawful grounds for prosecuting a claim when (he/she) has a
genuine belief in the existence of facts that support each essential element
of that claim, when those facts would warrant a person of ordinary caution,
prudence and judgment, under the circumstances, to entertain that belief.5

Under our law, one essential
element of <name of defendant>'s challenged claim of <claim made
in underlying action or proceeding as to which defendant allegedly lacked
probable cause>, as made against <name of plaintiff> in the
underlying (action/proceeding), is that <name and describe essential
element of claim presented in underlying action or proceeding as to which
defendant allegedly lacked probable cause>. <Name of plaintiff>
here alleges and has sought to prove that when <name of defendant>
commenced and prosecuted the underlying (action/proceeding) against
(him/her), (he/she) lacked probable cause to do so because (he/she) lacked
knowledge of facts sufficient to justify a reasonable person in believing <restate
essential element of claim presented in underlying action or proceeding as
to which the plaintiff claims that the defendant lacked probable cause>.

<Discuss facts in support of
and in opposition to the plaintiff 's claim of lack of probable cause as to
the element in question.>

Acted with maliceA person acts with malice when
(he/she) acts primarily for an improper purpose – that is, for a purpose
other than that of securing the proper adjudication of the claim on which
the (action/proceeding) is based. A person thus acts with malice towards
another person when (he/she) acts primarily out of hatred for or ill will
towards that person, or with the intent to vex, harass or annoy (him/her).
Malice may be inferred from lack of probable cause.6

Terminated in favor of
plaintiff7A civil (action/proceeding)
finally terminates in a manner favorable to the defendant in that
(action/proceeding) when it is dismissed, goes to judgment for the defendant
or is unilaterally withdrawn by the plaintiff with no consideration of any
kind.

[<If favorable final
termination element is uncontested:> In this case, <name of
defendant> has admitted in (his/her) answer that the underlying
(action/proceeding) was finally terminated in a manner favorable to <name
of plaintiff> on <date of final termination of underlying action or
proceeding with respect to the plaintiff> by <manner in which the
underlying action or proceeding finally terminated favorably to the
plaintiff>. You must therefore find that the third essential element of
vexatious suit has been established as a matter of law.]

[<If favorable final
termination element is contested:> In this case, <name of defendant>
has denied that the underlying (action/proceeding) was finally terminated in
a manner favorable to <name of plaintiff>. On that score, (he/she)
claims, more particularly, that even though (he/she) withdrew the underlying
(action/proceeding) [against <name of plaintiff>],8
(he/she) did not do so unilaterally, as required by law to constitute final
termination of the (action/proceeding) in a manner favorable to <name of
plaintiff>, but did so instead in exchange for valuable consideration,
consisting of <consideration allegedly exchanged for withdrawal of prior
claims>. A person acts unilaterally when (he/she) acts entirely on
(his/her) own, without the agreement or participation of others. Under
this definition, a person does not act unilaterally in withdrawing an
(action/proceeding) against another person when (his/her) motivation for so
doing, in whole or in part, is the other person's agreement to give
(him/her) valuable consideration of any kind – that is, anything of value,
including consideration of the type here claimed by the defendant –
in exchange for the withdrawal. Here, then, to establish the third
essential element of vexatious suit, <name of plaintiff> must
persuade you by a fair preponderance of the evidence both that <name of
defendant> withdrew the underlying (action/proceeding) against (him/her)
and that (he/she) did not do so, as claimed by <name of defendant>,
in exchange for <nature of consideration allegedly exchanged by the
plaintiff for the defendant's withdrawal of the underlying action or
proceeding against the plaintiff>.]

Injuries or LossesFinally, a successful claimant in
an action for vexatious suit is entitled to recover money damages for all
injuries or losses (he/she) was legally caused to suffer due to the
commencement and prosecution against (him/her) of the vexatious suit.
Compensable injuries and losses may include any of the following, all of
which are claimed by <name of plaintiff> against <name of
defendant> in (his/her) complaint: <here list all economic and
noneconomic injuries and losses which are claimed in the plaintiff's
complaint and supported by at least some evidence at trial>9
To establish the fifth essential element of vexatious suit, <name of
plaintiff> must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that <name
of defendant>, by commencing and prosecuting the underlying
(action/proceeding) against (him/her) without probable cause and with
malice, legally caused (him/her) to suffer at least some of the injuries or
losses claimed by (him/her) in this case.

If, at the end of your
deliberations, you find that <name of plaintiff> has failed to prove
any essential element of (his/her) vexatious suit claim by a fair
preponderance of the evidence, you must return a Defendant's Verdict on that
claim. If, on the other hand, you find that <name of plaintiff> has
proved each essential element of (his/her) vexatious suit claim by that
standard, then you must go on to determine what damages to award (him/her)
on that claim.

In this case, the plaintiff seeks
to recover [both]10
compensatory [and punitive] damages on (his/her) claim of vexatious suit.
To determine what compensatory damages, if any, to award the plaintiff on
that claim, you must first decide what injuries and losses claimed by
(him/her) were legally caused by the defendant's proven commencement and
prosecution against (him/her), without probable cause and with malice, of
the underlying (action/proceeding). You must then determine what amount of
damages is fair, just and reasonable to compensate the plaintiff for those
proven injuries and losses under my general instructions on compensatory
damages.

Economic damages may be awarded
for any financial loss or expense which <name of plaintiff> proves
(he/she) was legally caused to sustain or incur as a result of <name of
defendant>'s commencement and prosecution against (him/her), without
probable cause and with malice, of the underlying (action/proceeding).
Here, <name of plaintiff> seeks to recover economic damages for the
following financial losses and expenses which (he/she) claims to have been
legally caused by <name of defendant>'s commencement and prosecution
of the underlying (action/proceeding) against (him/her): <here list all
financial losses and expenses for which the plaintiff seeks economic
damages, as claimed in the complaint and supported by the evidence at trial,
including, where appropriate, any expenses, including reasonable attorney's
fees, incurred to defend against the underlying action or proceeding, any
lost wages for time required to attend court proceedings in the underlying
action or proceeding, any loss to business or property resulting from the
commencement and prosecution of the underlying action or proceeding, and any
reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred to treat physical or
mental injury caused by the commencement and prosecution of the underlying
action or proceeding11>.
If you find <name of defendant> liable for vexatious suit, as here
alleged, and that that vexatious suit legally caused <name of plaintiff>
to sustain or incur any such financial loss or expense, then you must award
(him/her) fair, just and reasonable economic damages for that proven loss or
expense, also in accordance with my general instructions on compensatory
damages. [<Add the following where appropriate:> You cannot,
however, award any attorney's fees or costs necessary to bring the present
claim for vexatious suit, but only those you find to have been reasonably
incurred to defend against the underlying (action/proceeding).]12

Noneconomic damages may be awarded
for any injury which <name of plaintiff> proves (he/she) was legally
caused to suffer as a natural consequence of <name of defendant>'s
commencement and prosecution against (him/her), without probable cause and
with malice, of the underlying (action/proceeding). Here, <name of
plaintiff> seeks to recover noneconomic damages for the following
injuries which (he/she) claims to have been legally caused by <name of
defendant>'s commencement and prosecution of the underlying
(action/proceeding) against (him/her): (<here list all types of emotional
or physical injuries for which the plaintiff seeks noneconomic damages, as
claimed in the complaint and supported by the evidence at trial, including,
where appropriate, mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment,
mortification, shame, fear and damage to reputation>.13
If you find that <name of defendant> commenced and prosecuted a
vexatious suit against <name of plaintiff>, as here alleged, and that
such vexatious suit legally caused <name of plaintiff> to suffer any
such injury, then you must award (him/her) fair, just and reasonable
noneconomic damages for that proven injury in accordance with my general
instructions on compensatory damages.

After making your separate
determinations as to economic and noneconomic damages, if you reach them in
the course of your deliberations, you must record your findings on the
appropriate lines of the Plaintiff's Verdict form, then add them together to
calculate total compensatory damages on the line provided for that purpose.

[To determine what punitive
damages, if any, to award the plaintiff on (his/her) claim of vexatious
suit, you must be guided by my general instructions on punitive damages,
which are as follows. <Insert general instructions on punitive damages,
Damages - Punitive, Instruction 3.4-4.>].
_______________________________________________________

1
The commencement and prosecution of a criminal complaint, with malice and
without probable cause, constitutes the distinct and different, but closely
analogous, tort of malicious prosecution.

2DeLaurentis v. New Haven,
220 Conn. 225, 252-53 (1991) ("[w]hether the facts are sufficient to
establish the lack of probable cause is a question ultimately to be
determined by the court, but when the facts themselves are disputed, the
court may submit the issue of probable cause in the first instance to a jury
as a mixed question of fact and law").

3
Add the bracketed language only if the underlying (action/proceeding) was
finally terminated earlier against the defendant rather than against one or
more other parties.

4Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper and Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn.
84, 100-101 (2007) (quoting DeLaurentis v. New Haven, supra, 220
Conn. 256.) It must be noted, however, that when the defendant is a lawyer
who filed the underlying action on behalf of a client, the objective
reasonableness of (his/her) belief in the existence of probable cause to
commence and prosecute the action must be measured by the standard of the
reasonable attorney familiar with the laws of this state, not that of the
reasonable person. Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper and Alcorn,
LLP, supra, 281 Conn. 103.

7
Typically, this element is uncontested. The alternative paragraph for when
it is contested describes a particular circumstance in which a defendant
might legitimately argue that the termination of the prior action does not
constitute a termination favorable to the plaintiff. The withdrawal of an
action for consideration does not constitute a favorable termination of the
action because the act of tendering consideration for its termination
suggests that it was prosecuted with probable cause.

12
See generally Vandersluis v. Weil, 176 Conn. 353, 358-59 (1976)
(clarifying that, in a common-law action for vexatious suit, "[a]ny cost of
litigation in a former trial less taxable costs would be compensatory
damages suffered by a plaintiff by reason of a former suit" whereas any cost
of litigation in the vexatious suit action itself would not be recoverable
in that action except, in an appropriate case, as the maximum amount of any
award of punitive damages).